BroCop

One thing I would REALLY love to see is a config file regarding the agencies. Basically, let us choose which peds and vehicles respond with each 'tier'. For instance, I have the Sheriff SEB and Sheriff Mavrick mod and have installed a couple of SAHP vehicles. I would love to be able to configure for those to pop up during character selection and when calling for backup. In addition, I'm sure people will be clamoring for a config file for the names of agencies and vehicles soon. Other than that, I'm loving it. The progress updates look amazing and lspdfr is so much more smooth than anything GTA IV could support.

So I have gotten new cars, and I can spawn them with the trainer. Hell, I can even get the cops to use them by adding them into dispatch.meta. However, it causes a pretty strange bug. If I add, say, a new highway patrol car and have it spawn at 3 stars, then it will show up with the LSPD and SWAT. But if you kill the original responding officers or simply outrun them, the game stops spawning the highway patrol car AND LSPD officers/detectives and will only spawn SWAT teams until you reset the wanted level back to one without the added cars. I'm not sure why it does this.

Hang on a second. From what I read, you're just waiting until the mod is stable and going to work before thinking about a public release, correct? Cause everyone here is acting like you said you are never releasing it. Also, could I ask what language you are writing the code in? I'm not sure where to start to get into the scene. :p

I think banning US Civil War games is clearly a knee-jerk reaction. However, pretending the battle flag of the grandest act of treason ever committed against the United States, which was done specifically to maintain slavery, and was then used by white supremacists, KKK members and anti-civil rights activities for the last hundred years doesn't carry just a little bit of negative history to some Americans is stupid. The only real government based banning I've heard kicked around is the idea that states shouldn't be flying the flag on public property. Also, to those of you that have heard the Lost Cause narrative and truly believe that the war was about States Rights, and not a single right (the one to slavery) please check your history. I could drop some articles discussing how the south trampled on the rights of other states, both those entering the Union and those north of the 38th parallel (look no further than the fugitive slave act). Maybe instead you would like verified historians discussing the issue. However, whenever possible, we should ask people who were there what their opinions are. From this comment: Well, it was about "states' rights". It's just that the "right" in question was the one to keep humans as property. From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, the first state to secede: "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety." From Mississippi, the second state to secede: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ... Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England." Alabama's 1861 Constitution has a whole section about slavery, reproduced here: "Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country. Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law. Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise. Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury. Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave." The way most people claim "states' rights were the cause of the civil war" is as an alternative to the "slavery was the cause of the civil war" explanation. This is entirely incorrect. However, I think that it can be accurate, so long as the "states' right" in question is the right to have a legal system that treats humans as property. After all, that is what many of the people involved said. Yes, division and dissention within the union occurred for other reasons. The economic split -agrarian south vs. industrializing north- was a real and persistent internal division that put real centrifugal force on the union. So was the changing cultural character of various states due to non-uniform levels of immigration, and political battles over financial, legislative, and judicial priorities. Regardless, many of the seceding states themselves identified their own positions with the institution of slavery. I have yet to see a plausible reason why they would do so falsely. It wouldn't give them domestic or international popularity, and wouldn't serve to 'paper-over' an uglier reason. The most parsimonious reason why they identified their political causes with slavery is because that's what their real political cause was.

Ya'll might enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU

Eh, I'm not 'looking for a reason to bitch' regarding our law enforcement officers dressing like soldiers. I think camo is pretty far down the list on important things regarding militarization, but I feel like it is a little weird when the only visual difference between some police officers and http://shatteredunion1.webs.com/ACU_Soldier2.jpg is the patch on their arm or back. Obviously tactics and how a department uses equipment are going to be the deciding factor here, regardless of what the officers are wearing. Still, if nothing else, choosing to dress like cops (solid dark colors) instead of the national guard is a pretty easy step to take to help people not feel like their police department is pretending to be the Army. After all, most of the camo choices don't even make sense. Why would woodland MARPAT be a good choice for St. Louis? Or UCP for southern California? Especially considering both of those examples the police were very publicly responding to a then-peaceful crowd, not a gunman who they needed to hide from. What's the problem with encouraging departments to dress like cops and not soldiers?

Seems to me people are blowing this waaaay out of proportion. Obama is simply banning the practice of the federal government giving certain weapons and tools to police for free. These guys can (and will) still buy ridiculous things, and the federal government is still handing out plenty of other equipment that is a little more useful. Things that we aren't going to be federally subsidizing anymore: "Grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or higher will no longer be provided to state and local police agencies by the federal government under Obama's order." Things that are not on that list? Body armor, black fatigues, helmets, NV Goggles, M4 and M16 rifles, MRAP Wheeled armored trucks, HUMVEE's, smoke grenades and any number of things that have a valid law enforcement purpose. Now, department will have to justify getting the city or county to buy thier bayonets, M113 armored personal carriers, .50 cal machine guns and the like. The people of those communities might find that body/dash cams are a slightly better thing to be spending all that money on. In other words, Obama pushed militarization debates to more local governments in the communities where the debates should be happening. Regardless of whether you personally aren't bothered by local cops putting on MARPAT and driving around in MRAP's to respond to whatever bum-county sheriff's office decides warrants the use of the cool tools, it bothers a lot of Americans. And not just whiny California liberals, but people like retired Marine Colonel Pete Martino. Obama is trying to strike a balance between officer safety and the concerns of American citizens, who are a little bugged by the fact that this is an American street, not a Russian one. That this is the equipment that can be fielded by local police departments who don't have the money to buy body or dash cams, tools that benefit cops and the people they serve. Or maybe those federal dollars could get regular bullet proof vests to patrol officers. How many Level IIIA vests is an MRAP worth? How about the yearly maintenance cost of a HUMVEE? If we traded in 10,000 bayonets, how many new cars and uniforms could we buy the Detroit police? Again, any police department can still buy an M113. They can still get bayonets (of which the Feds have given more than 10,000 of. WTF?) They can still by Army or Marine camo and play dress-up if they want to. They just have to get the local government to pay for the up front cost of a few of the extravagant tools, instead of the Federal government covering the cost of a tiny county in Oklahoma buying a platoon's worth of former USMC gear.

Well, probably the biggest problem with immigration is that our current process for legal immigration is a clusterfuck. Here's an article, written in a humored manner, detailing how hard it is for someone who: Speaks fluent English Lives in a stable, developed nation Has a job that he can do while traveling back and forth between the countries Has a home in the US Has family in the US that are Americans Has plenty of money to send in the forms and deal with the travel expenses Has all of his vital records And even then it took him thousands of dollars and almost a year to finish the process. Now imagine you have none of those, but a guy says he can get you into America and get you a job that makes enough money to feed your family if you pay him 100 bucks. Which will you choose? For those calling for a US Military presence on our border, there already is one. Finally, I find the idea that "I'm cool with immigration, so long as nothing changes and they conform perfectly because I was here first" a hilarious denial of how this country was populated in the first place. I'm sure quiet a few Native American tribes wish there was a massive border fence on the East Coast circa the 1500's.

Oh gosh, FEMA Camps. God I love that theory. Right up there with chemtrails. Anyway, I think the most obvious answer to this is "It depends". A hypothetical 'civil war' scenario is has to be defined before we decide who's side anyone is on. If say, an armed uprising in Utah akin to the Bundy 'taxes are optional also guess what we know about the negro' cropped up with a couple thousand people this time, it's safe to say the police are going to be on the side putting that down. If widespread economic downturn and social collapse (which, despite what survivalists on youtube would like you to believe, would take a little more time to happen then it took me to type that and is incredibly unlikely) then the question really comes down to how safe the cops and soldiers feel, how secure in their paycheck and the safty of their families, and just how bad these massive sweeping changes are. If this downturn made a bunch of poor people riot, but most cops and soldiers had a paycheck and didn't feel worried about their families, then they would most likely fight to maintain order. So what scenario's are we talking about qualifying as "American people were to rise up against it's government's tyranny"? Is it a bunch of farmers in Iowa deciding they would rather die then let the damn dirty feds tell insurance companies that being raped isn't something that should disqualify someone from ever getting health insurance? Or is this a situation where America is what Alex Jones thinks it is? How widespread is the discontent? Is it 1% of Americans fighting? 10%? Are Major cities fighting? Is there organized leadership? Is it powered by a Christian theocracy movement? Is it inclusive of minorities? Does it involve major states like New York, California and the urban area's of Texas? Is the same situation all across the globe?

I apologize if the attacks appeared personal, I was attempting to attack the position and not yourself. I yield the debate to you (though I would encourage looking up the reports that put the climategate emails into context, which have all cleared them of being a conspiracy) , and I hope there is no hard feelings. Have an excellent day.

To quote rational wiki, here is the Explain Like I'm Five on how climate change works. For those that doubt Climate Change, please read the quoted text below. Anyone who doubts that list needs to present evidence refuting 97% of published papers last year saying otherwise. Prove the data wrong. Give a different reason for this. And understand you need a lot of evidence to give a better theory, given that you will be claiming the ability to disprove something that almost every single climate scientist has agreed is factual. Please, someone provide me with a theory on why greenhouse gases and the global average temperature are increasing that points that finger at something other than the 9.7 billion metric tonnes per year of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. Now, to respond to previous comments. No there wasn't. And the earth was known to be round since the days of the Greek Empire. No, that's incorrect. Here's one of likely thousands of predictions that are spot on. You can provide a few times people got ahead of themselves and predicting things would be worse 30 years in the future. Show me internationally backed predictions that CO2 would stop increasing, or that the ocean would cool, or the the temperature would stop rising, or that ice would stop melting (guess you get that one, IPCC believed that it would take longer for the ice to melt!) or the permafrost would stop defrosting, or the ocean levels would stop rising. All of these things were predicted, and as time went on, almost perfectly. There's the predictions. Yes, there have been failed ones, but those are almost always people who over-estimate the results of something specifically to fear-monger or try to spur action. Show me hard data predictions that are or were wrong any time in the last 20 years that were support by international organizations or a large number of national ones. *sigh* The Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it is a tabloid. They exist to print shocking headlines. E! is probably a more reliable source of unbiased information on a controversial opinion, which is really saying something.. Even if they were a real newspaper with Journalistic integrity, their story is wrong. Show us better information from scientific bodies, or at least well sourced articles in actual media organizations. They do know what they are talking about. Also, may I point out that the use of the word belief is telling of the argument. If I believe that chemo therapy is a placebo, despite the decrease in cancer deaths attributed to its invention, that makes me wrong, not the holder of a valid scientific theory. We do have a solution! Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's really that simple. Of course, that would cost a lot of people who own coal, natural gas, shale and oil businesses a lot of money, since high tech solar, wind and geothermal tends to cost more money to deploy and is being done by other companies. Draw your own conclusions on why one of the most simplistic scientific concepts is still 'debated' in the media even though everyone with an understanding of how climates work stopped 'debating' it because they were drowning under overwhelming evidence decades ago. Yeah, you're probably right! You're not a poor child living in a disadvantage country that will face harsh problems in the next 50 years from climate change. You'll probably be dead before the temperature increases start really impacted the lives of the wealthiest nations. You'll probably be dead before crops fail from rising temperatures. You'll probably be dead before fresh water resources begin to disappear. You'll probably be dead before El Nino/La Nina like weather is the norm. Just like most bridges probably won't fall down in your life, so we should spend the money on something else and let our children deal with that problem. "Polluting water probably won't impact us" said generations of Ohioans before the Cuyahoga River caught fire. And you know what? They were right. The people who died weren't the people who polluted the river in the first place. The mindset that many climate change deniers take of "It isn't our problem today" is one of the most personally frustrating statements I hear. Are we seriously going to sit around and say "If it won't kill us today, there is no reason to do anything to stop it." Is that the legacy we want to leave our children? "Haha, sucks to be you! Bet you wish someone did something 30 years ago!" That mindset is disgusting to me and is the easist way for humanity to ignore its problems until it is too late. Image if we used the same logic for other problems? Bridges will collapse in the future. Antibiotic resistant bacteria will be a problem in the future. Economic inequality will be a problem in the future. Therefor, let the future deal with it then.

The article is a little vague on the meaning, which has led to some confusion. It is NOT saying that, if global warming is not reversed, coastal cities could flood by the year 2000. It is saying that if CO2 emissions are not curved enough to slow or stop the current rate of global warming by the year 2000, that it would cause enough run-away problems in the future to eventually flood many islands and coastal cities. That prediction is often misreported, particularly by those who are interested in discrediting climate change. Here is an article covering sea level rising. It is openly discussed there that the rate of rising is slow, but will be a serious problem if it doesn't stop. They have one of the largest consensuses in modern science backing it up. Understand that Climate Change is a debate pretty much solely because the media says it is. A fine debate is what we should do to prevent further warming (which causes change, hence the name) but a fine debate is NOT if it is happening or not. That has been settled. Now unless you want to propose that you understand physics, brain surgery, rocket science or advanced computer science better than hundreds of PHD holders and every major scientific institution that has cared to comment on their respective subjects, don't try to say that you understand climates better than 97% of scientists. I apologize if that second paragraph's tone came off a little too hostile. Also, to the argument that antarctica is gaining ice (used a few comments ago) I will simple quote from Skeptical Science, tl;dr: There's two kinds of ice, fresh and salt. The salt ice melts every summertime in the southern hemisphere and refreezes every winter. The fresh ice is really important and doesn't really melt much normally. It is melting a lot. It makes it easier for seawater to freeze during the cold months in Antarctica, because less salinated water can freeze quicker than pure ocean water. Because of this, there is a greater change in what freezes and what doesn't freeze every year, and more freshwater is being added to the ocean. This is a problem.

Anthropomorphic climate change is NOT believed to be the only climate change earth has ever had. What it is is a very rapid one, powered by the increase in greenhouse gases, that could make earth a different place than what it was when humans came into existence. In addition, natural climate change (barring dramatic acts such as supervolcanoes and meteors) generally takes hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years to come to fruition. Anthropomorphic climate change is caused by the very rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere, which heats the planet under the very simple process known as the greenhouse effect. Now, unless there is another species that has built a global civilization on earth that is dependent on the burning of hydrocarbons to provide the basics of survival for all 7 billion+ members of their species, it's fair to say that humans are causing this increase in CO2. Why are they melting? They aren't. The oft cited study that mars is experiencing global warming is talking about a very short time period, from the 1970s to the 1990s. Mars has, on average, been slightly warmer in those 20 years than in years past. This evidence is mainly based one a few images of the planet right after a dust storm contrasted with it during one. However, this isn't doing much to the polar ice caps there, and more importantly, the planet is NOT being warmed from an excess of CO2, nor is there evidence to suggest long term warming. Since the 1850s, it has always been warmer on earth than it was in previous years. The climate variability on mars comes from their atmosphere being vastly thinner than earth and the fact that massive dust storms, which block out the sun and can cool the planet (or in this case, if they don't happen enough, can have a net warming impact) are the driving change in Mars' climate. It is a myth to suggest that Mars is suffering from any provable long term global warming. (Bold by me) If a scientist could legitimately prove that anthropomorphic climate change is not occurring, or even just prove that the thousands of papers published showing that it is caused by human activity are fundamentally flawed and incorrect, then that scientist would be remembered as one of the single most important contributors to modern science. If the paper had verifiable and irrefutable evidence that climate change is not being caused by humans, thus proving one of the most widely accepted facts of the 20th and 21st centuries, then it would spawn many a lifetime of followup studies and research grants. It would be the most important paper published in at least the last 25 years. Yet, somehow, that hasn't happened. Every time a climatologist sets out to figure out why the earth is getting warmer, the evidence points to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere since the late 1700s. History tells us that a widespread species starting doing a lot of things that puts CO2 into the air around the same time. We have yet for a legitimate scientist to propose a plausible and evidence backed alternative theory (scientific theory, not colloquial. So one backed with evidence and peer-reviewed verifiable data) that gives us a different mechanism for the heating. I blame the widespread political disbelief in a scientific fact not on Republicans, but on certain conservatives, mass hysteria, crap reporting by the media and fossil fuel lobbies. The Republican party might cater to some of these groups more than the Democrats (which party always tries to roadblock environmental legislation?), but both sides have said ignorant and blatantly false or misleading things about climate change. After all, the Kyoto protocol was shut down by both parties in the Senate in 1998. It just so happens that conservatives tend to be doing more to prevent responses to climate change than anyone else, however, and I felt the need to bring this into the discussion, since there is no scientific debate to be had here. Unless there is a paper that can fundamentally prove every university system, climatologist and government in the United States, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Australia and Italy wrong, we have nothing to discuss but why we aren't doing something and what we need to do today. The only reason we are debating the existence of global warming is because the media treats this as an open issue; something that is still being tested. But by the people who are educated as to how climate science works? This is a done deal. It's a fact. You can believe that 5 is a bigger number than 15, but that doesn't make you right. Jon Oliver did a lovely sketch explaining what this 'debate' would look like if we gave each side the debating power that it has in the scientific world. I really, really wish global warming was a hoax. That we could keep burning fossil fuels and not worry about any long term damage to the planet or our ecosystem. But just like I wish I had a million dollars, or that I wish there was no suffering in the world, or that I wish my crappy car was a new Dodge charger, no matter how much I want something to be true, even if I believe it is, it doesn't make it true. Denying anthropomorphic climate change is denying one of the most universally accepted and proven facts of the 21st century. You'd have more luck holding an alternative theory to Newtonian physics, cell theory or string theory than to suggest climate change is anything other than a Human caused problem.

Something that always has bothered me whenever climate change is 'debated' is that the denying side always tends to claim two things: 1. 'Global Warming' is a bad name for Global Climate Change (therefor the theory is bunk) and 2. We don't have enough data. I think both sides can agree on the first part of number 1, since it's a bad name that is much too overused. Yes, the earth is getting hotter, but as an average, not as a day-to-day thing. As a result, it'll be colder some places and warmer others on any given day, but if you look at what the average temperature is every year, it is always going up. Seriously, check it out. By calling it Global Warming, it makes people in Minnesota think it is bullshit every time it snows. XKCD has a decent comic explaining the negative impact of calling climate change global warming. Number two on the other hand? Bullshit, plain and simple. There are no legitimate scientific bodies that believe the current heating of the planet is primarily caused by anything other than human beings. None. The last one changed its opinion in 2007, and it was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Seriously. It's one of the most wildly agreed upon things in the scientific world, up there with vaccines being safe and physics being real. I know we, or at least I, really don't want us to be causing climate change, because if we aren't, it means we don't need to change anything. We can keep pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and never get worried. But the sad fact is we are most definitely doing it, and no one who knows what they are talking about disagrees. Of course, obviously some people do. Who? Primarily the fossil fuels lobby and the Koch brothers, or people who have a lot of interest in keeping people using coal, natural gas and oil, instead of renewables. Just like when scientific consensus was reached that smoking and chewing tobacco was detrimental to the health of a human being, a bunch of deniers appeared on behalf of the Tobacco industry shedding 'doubt' on the studies. Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change. If climate change was so obviously bunk, or so plainly easy to see as unresearched and not our problem, then why would businesses and politicians be spending millions of dollars to suppress information and raise doubt about scientific consensus? We are causing climate change. It isn't going to end life on earth, but it could very well end our life. Humans are an immensely species. We've built machines that have taken us off of our own planet, and right now you are reading something that was shot at a satellite with a beam of light less than 3 seconds before you could read it. Unfortunately, we have become powerful enough to, in small steps and over hundreds of years, impact the balance of a very delicate system of things. No one reading this is likely to be severely impacted by climate change. But our children will be. And theirs. We have to work today to mitigate the future consequences of our actions, and anyone telling you otherwise is either misinformed about the facts or willingly ignoring them for personal gain.

From what I've gathered, ELS V8 is, under the trunk, A much different beast than any other ELS. So, no. But have no fear, I have a feeling that the ELS DEVS aren't done yet.

Haha, that was great! What ENB are you running?

Yup! Well, sort of. I wrote a tutorial on it here. tl;dr go to pedgrp.dat, open it up, find POPCYCLE_GROUP_COPS and replace 'm_m_fatcop' with 'm_y_cop'. LCPDFR naturally spawns fatcops as backup sometimes, so when playing it, you'll get a nice balance.

Question, where are you guys getting these raw assets?

Out of curiosity Sam, where did you get the raw audio for the female cops? If it's available (and not prohibitively difficult) I'd be interesting in trying to port over the male cop voices to IV.

Oh, speaking of speech, you mentioned you had done some work to replace fatcop speech with GTA V female speech, is that still happening and/or will it be in the release?